Whittington 2005 Apostle Paul[1]

8/10/2019 Whittington 2005 Apostle Paul[1]

1/22

Legacy leadership: The leadership wisdom of the Apostle Paul

J. Lee Whittington a,T, Tricia M. Pitts b, Woody V. Kagelerb, Vicki L. Goodwin c

a University of Dallas, United Statesb Texas Wesleyan University, United Statesc

University of North Texas, United States

Abstract

There is recent increasing interest in the spiritual dimensions of work, organizations and leadership coupled

with heightened interest in Biblical perspectives on leadership. For example, recent works by Manz [Manz, C.

(1998). The leadership wisdom of Jesus: Practical lessons for today. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.] and Manz,

Manz, Marx, & Neck [Manz, C., Manz, K., Marx, R., and Neck, C. (2001). The wisdom of Solomon at work:

Ancient virtues for living and leading today. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.] examined the leadership styles of

Jesus and various Old Testament characters. In this article, we identify 10 leadership qualities of the Apostle Paul

based on Pauls first letter to the Thessalonians. These qualities represent the motives and methods necessary forlegacy leadership. We present logic for a causal model of spiritual leadership that represents evidence of legacy

leadership in terms of the changed lives of followers. The legacy of the leaders influence is perpetuated through

the followers incorporation of legacy principles into their lives as they become leaders.

D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Leadership; Emotional intelligence; Motives

1. Introduction

Recently there has been a growing interest in the popular press addressing the religious or spiritualimplications of employment. Several recent books, including The Working Life: The Promise and

Betrayal of Modern Work (Ciulla, 2000), Spirit at Work: Discovering the Spirituality in Leadership

(Conger, 1994),The Call: Finding and Fulfilling the Central Purpose of Your Life (Guinness, 1998),Let

Your Life Speak: Listening for the Voice of Vocation (Palmer, 2000), andThe Congruent Life: Following

1048-9843/$ - see front matterD 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.006

T Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 972 721 5276.

E-mail address:[email protected] (J.L. Whittington).

The Leadership Quarterly 16 (2005) 749770


2/22

the Inward Path to Fulfilling Work and Inspired Leadership (Thompson, 2000) emphasize the need to

evaluate the spiritual dimensions of organizations and careers. Within this general trend, there also has

been a heightened interest in leadership froma Biblical perspective. Titles such as Leadership by theBook: Tools to Transform your Workplace (Blanchard,Hybels, & Hodges, 1999), Jesus CEO: Using

Ancient Wisdom for Visionary Leadership (Jones, 1995), The Leadership Wisdom of Jesus: Practical

Lessons for Today (Manz, 1998), andThe Wisdom of Solomon at Work: Ancient Virtues for Living and

Leading Today (Manz et al., 2001)all discuss leadership from a scriptural perspective.

Although there is a growing interest in spiritual and Biblically-based approaches to leadership, there

has been little work in this area that has linked Biblically-based leadership ideaswith the social scientific

approach to leadership. An excellent exception to this is Wildavskys (1984) work on Moses. In his

book,The Nursing Father: Moses as a Political Leader, Wildavsky explicitly attempts to link the social

science and Biblical interpretations of leadership in a way that each bserves the otherQ (p. 2). In this

paper, we follow Wildavskys approach by examining the leadership qualities that guided the Apostle

Paul as he helped establish the early church. These qualities are based on an exegesis of Pauls first letterto the church at Thessalonica.

Our purpose is to use the qualities we see demonstrated in Pauls life and writings to develop a model

of spiritual leadership. First, we provide a brief introduction to Paul based on the accounts of his life

provided by Luke in the New Testament Book of Acts and Pauls own letters. Second, we identify and

discuss 10 qualities of effective leadership that we see in the life and ministry of the Apostle Paul. Third,

we develop a causal model of spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003)that focuses on the relationships among

these qualities and the means by which they are perpetuated through followers over time. Finally, we

discuss the implications of our modelfor future research in the areas of transformational (Avolio, 1999;

Bass, 1985) and servant-leadership (Greenleaf, 1977), motive patterns (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996),

and emotional intelligence (Goleman, Boyzatis, & McKee, 2002).

2. Paul and the Thessalonians

2.1. Background on the Apostle Paul

The Apostle Paul was more responsible than any other individual for the spread of Christianity

throughout the Roman Empire (MacArthur, 1997). Often referred to as the bapostle to the Gentiles,QPaul

was perhaps the greatest Christian missionary and theologian who ever lived. Born in Tarsus around the

time of Christs birth (Acts 9:11, New American Standard Bible-Updated Edition,Lockman Foundation,

1995), he was a member of the tribe of Benjamin (Phil. 3:5) and also was a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37;22:25). He spent his early years studying with the celebrated rabbi, Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Following his

father, Paul was a member of the strictest Jewish sect, the Pharisees (Phil. 3:5). By his own assessment,

Paul was fanatically committed to keeping every detail of the Jewish law: b. . .as to the Law, a

Pharisee. . .as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blamelessQ (Phil. 3:56).

Prior to his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus, Paul was relentless in his efforts to

destroy the new sect that was filling Jerusalem with its teaching and converts. Paul himself refers to the

zeal with which he persecuted the church (Phil. 3:6). Luke records that Paul was bin hearty agreement

withQthe stoning death of Stephen (Acts 8:1). After Stephens death, Paul bbegan ravaging the church,

entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prisonQ(Acts 8:3).

J.L. Whittington et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 16 (2005) 749770750


3/22

While bstill breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the LordQ (Acts 9:1), Paul was

confronted on the road to Damascus by the risen Christ. Jesuspointed out that Pauls persecution of the

Christians was the equivalent to opposing God. According to MacArthur (1997), Paul must have beenterrified that he was in the presence of God and devastated at the thought that rather than serving God he

was shedding the blood of Gods people. Following this miraculous intervention, Paul used his natural

zealousness to serve the Lord he had previously rejected, to proclaim the gospel, and to build the early

church that he previously sought to destroy. According to Luke, Paul was set apart by the Lord for a

unique ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; 13:46; 18:6; 20:6; 26:1517). Paul provides a personal

account of these events in his letter to the Galatians:

For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of

God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it; and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my

contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.

But when He who had set me apart, even from my mothers womb, and called me through His grace,was pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles . . . (1:1316).

By his own admission, Paul was not physically attractive. In his second letter to the Corinthians, he

says his bpersonal presence is unimpressive, and his speech contemptibleQ (2 Cor. 10:10). Tradition

holds that he was small in stature and had scars over his face and body from the many beatings and

stonings he endured (MacArthur, 1991). As with Moses in the Old Testament, these physical limitations

did not deter him from his mission or reduce his effectiveness.

Scholar F. F.Bruce (1977)calls Paul a man of letters and a man of action that left his mark on world

history. Christianity was founded in the land of Israel; its founder and initial disciples were Jews. Yet, in

little more than a generation after the death of Jesus, Christianity was recognized by the Roman

authorities as a predominantly Gentile movement. Additionally, Christianity emerged from southwestern

Asia, among people whose primary language was Aramaic. Yet, the foundational documents have come

down to the present in Greek. According to Bruce (1977), bboth of these phenomena . . .are due

primarily to the energy with which Paul, a Jew by birth and upbringing, spread the gospel of Christ in the

Gentile world from Syria to Italy, if not indeed to Spain, during the thirty years or so which followed his

conversionQ(p. 17). Paul belongs to bthat select company who leave their mark on their time, who mold

their contemporaries, and exert an influence which stretches far into the futureQ(p. 462).

Pauls accomplishments as a missionary also are emphasized byAllen (1927):

In little more than ten years St. Paul established the church in four provinces of the Empire:

Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia. Before A.D. 47 there were no churches in these provinces;

in A.D. 57 St. Paul could speak as if his work were done (p. 18).

2.2. Pauls first letter to the church at Thessalonica

Paul first preached the gospel in Thessalonica during his second missionary journey. Thessalonica

was a strategic center located on the banks of a harbor in the Thermaic Gulf near the northwest corner of

the Aegean Sea (Constable, 1983). The city also was located on the Egnatian way, the main Roman road

from Rome to the Orient. Thus, Thessalonica was a strategic center both governmentally and militarily.

After his initial visit to Thessalonica, Paul wrote two letters to the believers there. The first epistle to

the Thessalonians was written to meet several needs (Constable, 1983). First, Paul sought to encourage

J.L. Whittington et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 16 (2005) 749770 751


4/22

his children in the faith to persevere despite persecution. Second, he refuted the accusation that he was

motivated by financial gain and personal need. Third, he wrote to correct a drift toward moral laxity and

laziness. While there are hints of Pauls personal leadership philosophy throughout his 13 NewTestament epistles, the essence of his leadership is most clearly presented in his letters to the church at

Thessalonica (MacArthur, 2002; Swindoll, 2002). In this paper, we focus on the 1 Thessalonians 1:2

through 2:12 passage. In these verses, Paul provides a great deal of insight into both the motive and the

method of his leadership style.

The Text

We give thanks to God always for all of you, making mention of you in our prayers; constantly

bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus

Christ in the presence of our God and Father, knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you;

for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with

full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. Youalso became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the

joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia.

For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in

every place your faith toward God has gone forth, so that we have no need to say anything. For they

themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God

from idols to serve a living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom he raised from

the dead, that is Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come. For you yourselves know, brethren,

that our coming to you was not in vain, but after we had already suffered and been mistreated in

Philippi, as you know, we had the boldness in our God to speak to you the gospel amid much

opposition. For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit; but just as

we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men butGod who examines our hearts. For we never came with flattering speech, as you know, nor with a

pretext for greed God is witness nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others,

even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority. But we proved to be gentle

among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children. Having thus a fond affection for

you, we were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but also our own lives,

because you had become very dear to us. For you recall, brethren, our labor and hardship, how

working night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you, we proclaimed to you the gospel of

God. You are witnesses, and so is God, how devoutly and uprightly and blamelessly we behaved

toward you believers; just as you know how we were exhorting and encouraging and imploring each

one of you as a father would his own children, so that you may walk in a manner worthy of the Godwho calls you into His own kingdom and glory (1 Thess. 1:2 2:12,New American Standard Bible-

Updated Edition,Lockman Foundation,1995).

3. Legacy leadership: a conceptual investigation of leadership qualities from Pauls first letter to

the Thessalonians

Pauls words from 1 Thessalonians 1:2 2:12 reflect an earnest, heartfelt desire to encourage the

young church he had founded on an earlier journey. It was Pauls intention to present guidelines for the



5/22

maturation not only of the young church but also for the individual believers. We have chosen bLegacy

LeadershipQas a reflection of the fact that Paul created a self-perpetuating model of leadership that not

only had an impact on the Thessalonians, but churches in b

Macedonia and Achaia, and also in everyplace your faith toward God has gone forthQ (1 Thess. 1:8). With our use of bself-perpetuating,Q we

acknowledge that Pauls leadership style was one that intentionally created other leaders, who in turn

created other leaders (seeFig. 1). This process was used by Paul throughout his missionary journeys so

that he could leave each place with the confidence that others we re prepared to continuehis work of

winning souls for Christ. Pauls method also is consistent with Koestenbaums (2002) definition of

LeaderWorthy of Imitation

FollowersBecome imitators of leaders

and example for others to follow

Followers themselves become

Legacy Leaders who are worthy

of imitation

FollowersBecome imitators of leaders

and example for others to follow

Followers themselves become

Legacy Leaders who are worthy

of imitation

Fig. 1. Legacy logic.



6/22

leadership as the process of teaching others to lead. According to Wildavsky (1984), teaching others to

lead is the highest level of leadership. In this section, we provide an exegetical analysis of the passage to

provide a greater understanding of the intent and meaning of Pauls letter. In doing so, we identifyseveral qualities of effective leadership. These qualities are summarized in Table 1.

3.1. Worthy of imitation

The first quality we identify in this passage is that Paul was worthy of imitation; imitation is a

recurring theme in Pauls writings. In 1 Corinthians 4:16, he bexhortsQthe Corinthians to be imitators of

him. Later, in the same letter, he tells them to bbe imitators of me, just as I also am of ChristQ(1 Cor.

11:1). In his letter to the Ephesians, he encourages imitation of God (Eph. 5:1). In the letter to the

Philippians, he encourages believers to bjoin in following my example, and observe those who walk

according to the pattern you have in usQ(Phil. 3:17). This theme is repeated in Phil. 4:9: bThe things you

have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things; and the God of peace shall bewith you.QImitation also is emphasized in his second letter to the Thessalonians where he says he offered

himself as ba model for you, that you might follow our exampleQ(2 Thess. 3:9).

In 1 Thessalonians, he commends them for the fact that they had become imitators of bus and the

Lord.Q In doing so, they also had become examples for others to follow. In the original Greek, typos,

translated asexample, refers to a seal that marked wax or a stamp that minted coins (MacArthur, 1997).

The word originally denoted a mark made by a blow. The usage evolved and the word came to refer to

any image whether stamped or not. The word has ethical significance when it is used as a pattern of

conduct or, as it is in this text, as an example to be followed (Morris, 1991). Thus, Paul recognizes the

fact that the Thessalonians were leaving their mark on others. This is consistent with the idea so

prevalent in contemporary discussions of leadership that a leader must model the way for the followers(Bass & Avolio, 1994).

3.2. Boldness amid opposition

The second quality to be drawn from this passage is that effective leaders must demonstrate boldness

amid opposition. Paul states that bwe had the boldness [italics added] in our God to speak to you the

gospel of Godamid much opposition [italics added]Q(1 Thess. 2:2). It is widely accepted that leadership

is about change. In fact, the phrase bchange-agentQ is often used to describe the work of a leader.

Table 1

Qualities of legacy leadership

Worthy of imitation

Boldness amid opposition

Pure motive

Influence without asserting authority

Affectionate and emotional

Vulnerable and transparent

Authentic and sincere

Active, not passive

Follower-centered, not self-centered

Changed lives: The real measure of leader effectiveness



7/22

Zaleznik (1977)believes this is the key distinction between managers and leaders. Kotter (1990)also

identifies leadership as a catalyst for the change process in organizations. Change is usually met with

resistance if not outright opposition. Paul recognizes this fact and talks about the boldness to stay onmission despite the opposition. He refers here to the brutal treatment he and Silas received in Philippi

before coming to Thessalonica (Acts 16:1924, 37). There they were beaten and imprisoned. They were

arrogantly mistreated with false accusations and illegally punished despite their Roman citizenship

(MacArthur, 1997; Acts 16: 2021, 37). Paul experienced such treatment frequently, yet retained a

supernatural level of resilience. He reflects on this in his second letter to the Corinthians:

But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassing greatness of the power may be of

God and not from ourselves; we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not

despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying about in

the body the dying of Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who

live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus sake, that the life of Jesus also may bemanifested in our mortal flesh. (2 Cor. 4:711).

When they arrived in Thessalonica they were physically intimidated and falsely accused of civil

treason (Acts 17: 57). Despite this treatment, they boldly proclaimed the message of the gospel.

Koestenbaum (2002)identifies courage as one of the four corners of his bleadership diamondQand refers

to the need to accept the loneliness that may come from standing by your convictions once you have

carefully identified what they are. He points out that leaders must be willing to take a stand in order to be

truly influential and expand their capability for bleadership greatness.Q Paul exemplifies this type of

courageous persistence.

3.3. Pure motive

The third leadership quality to be drawn from Paul is that of pure motive. In verses 2:3 through 2:6,

Paul goes to some length to defend his motive against the accusations that were being circulated by

opponents of the gospel and false teachers. Specifically, he addresses three charges. First, he addresses

the claim that his message was false by stating that his message did not come from berror.Q As the

Thessalonians were well aware, Paul was initially met with ill treatment when he first addressed them.

Yet, he persisted with his message despite these hardships. This demonstrated his concern for the truth,

not private gain (Morris, 1991).

The second charge was more serious. bImpurityQ denotes sexual impurity, which was a common

feature of many cults during this period. Ritual prostitution was performed in many temples with the idea

that if a person was physically united with a messenger of one of the gods, they were also united with thegod (Morris, 1991). Apparently some of Pauls detractors had made a similar accusation. Paul

emphatically rejects this charge.

The third accusation has to do with the methods employed by the apostle. The phrase bby way of

deceitQrefers to trickery. Originally, it referred to using bait to catch fish. The usage evolved to mean any

piece of cunning and was descriptive of the wandering Sophists and jugglers who resorted to various

tricks to attract people and take their money (Morris, 1991).

Paul draws a strong contrast between himself and his accusers. He refutes these accusations in verse 4.

He states that his message could not have come from error because God entrusted him with the gospel

message. He was not impure because he had been selected, tested, and approved by God. Finally, he was



8/22

not a trickster because he sought to please God, not men. Paul is claiming that the purity of his motive is

not a superficial effort at impression management because he points out that God examines the heart, not

merely external appearances (1 Sam. 16:7). He offers a similar defense in his first letter to theCorinthians:

Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. In

this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one is found trustworthy. But to me it is a very

small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine

myself. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one

who examines me is the Lord. Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait

until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the

motives of mens hearts; [italics added] and then each mans praise will come to him from God (1

Cor. 4:15).

Paul continues to defend his motive in 1 Thessalonians 2:56. Here he reminds the Thessalonians thatthey had observed his behavior (bas you knowQ) and issues three disclaimers to demonstrate the purity of

his motive. First, in stating that he bnever came with flattering speech,Qhe denied that he was a smooth-

talking preacher (MacArthur, 1997). In the Greek, flattery has the idea of using remarks as means of

obtaining some personal gain. It is a use of insincerity to persuade another to do ones will (Morris,

1991). Thus, Paul asserts that he was not trying to make a favorable impression to obtain some personal

advantage.

Pauls second disclaimer is aimed at the accusation that he had come bwith a pretext for greed.QThis is

another attack on his sincerity. Pretext refers to a mask that conceals the real motive. The word refers to

the idea of putting forth something that is plausible, that may in fact be true in itself, but is not the real

reason for performing an act (Morris, 1991). So here, Paul denies that his ministry is just a cover for anunderlying motive of greed.

The third disclaimer issued by Paul addresses the idea that he had sought the approval and esteem of

people. This reiterates the statement of verse 4. In verse 4, he says they did not pursue goals that would

meet with the approval of people. In verse 6, he claims that he did not seek praise for himself. Whereas

he and the other apostles may have deserved and received praise, that was not their motive.

Pauls emphasis on personal integrity and high standards of moral excellence are a refreshing contrast

to the greed exemplified in contemporary leadership scandals. The importance of such character traits is

emphasized in the recent work of ethicist WilliamMay (2001)who believes that it is imperative that we

bexamine directly the moral underpinnings of the marketplace and the moral status of corporate leaders

within itQ(p.131). This emphasis on character is also an integral part ofFrys (2003)model of spiritual

leadership, and is clearly connected to recent work on inauthentic, or pseudo-transformational,leadership (Price, 2003).

3.4. Influence without asserting authority

The fourth quality of Pauls leadership style is that he exerted influence without asserting authority.

The phrase beven though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authorityQrefers to demands

that the apostle might have made on the Thessalonians for physical and financial support. Rather than

doing this, Paul worked night and day so as not to be a burden. He lived on what he earned as a

tentmaker and the offerings from the Philippians. By earning his own way, Paul further demonstrated the



9/22

purity of his motives which, in turn, gave him a platform for influence that did not rely on the authority

of his title or position. He reiterates this point and again emphasizes in his second letter to the

Thessalonians the importance of leaders modeling the behavior they seek to see developed in theirfollowers. In 2 Thessalonians 3:79, Paul says:

For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an

undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyones bread without paying for it, but with

labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you;

not because we do not have the right to this ,but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so

that you would follow our example [italics added].

In his letter to the church in Ephesus, Paul specifically addressed the relationships between masters

and slaves. In that passage (Eph. 6:59), Paul reminds both parties that they are to treat each other with

respect bas to the LordQand then explicitly tells the masters to bgive up threatening.QPauls pure motive

allowed him to operate from a base of referent power ( French & Raven, 1959), even though he couldhave used the reward, coercive, or legitimate power bases available to him because of his position.

Referent power also is a key aspect in transformational leadership theory and is exemplified in the use of

ascribed charisma and inspirational motivation behaviors to encourage followers toward vision

accomplishment (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994).

3.5. Affectionate and emotional

In verses 7 and 8, we gain further insight into the apostles motive and method. From these verses, we

see that Pauls relationship with the Thessalonians was affectionate and emotional. He reminds the

Thessalonians that he b

proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her ownchildren. Having so fond an affection for you. . .you had become very dear to us.QPaul used similar

imagery in his second letter to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 11:11) and in his letter to the Galatians (Gal. 4:19).

According toMacArthur (2002), btenderly caresQliterally translated refers to bwarm with body heat.QA

loving mother would take her baby in her arms and warm the child with her own body heat. This

metaphor shows the kind of personal care Paul sought to provide the Thessalonians. This same image

was used by Moses in his relationship with the Israelites in Numbers 11:12. As with Moses, Pauls

affection for those he led was like that of a mother who is willing to sacrifice her life for her child. This

parallels Christ who was willing to give up his own life for those who would be born again into the

family of God (Mark 10:45).

The phrase bamong youQindicates that Paul was in the midst of the Thessalonians, taking a place of

equality. Rather than separating from them based on his position, he lived among them. Far from tryingto achieve some personal or financial gain from them, he became one of them and lavished affectionate

care upon them (Morris, 1991).

3.6. Vulnerable and transparent

All too often, leaders feel they must create an image of invulnerability. They go to great lengths to

create a facade that cannot be penetrated. To maintain distance between themselves and their followers,

these leaders draw strict boundaries around themselves and do not share personal beliefs, concerns, and

fears with their followers. In fact, the first of theFive Temptations of a CEO (Lencioni, 1998)is to create



10/22

a mask of invulnerability. In contrast to this practice, Paul was willing to be vulnerable and transparent.

He states that he was bwell-pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but our own lives as

wellQ

(1 Thess. 2:8). The construction of this phrase in the Greek indicates that this was not a passingwhim but a habitual style (Morris, 1991). Paul and his associates never lost sight of the call to share the

gospel, thus the sharing of the gospel is mentioned first. This was their mission. However, to share the

gospel with integrity requires not only sharing the message but themselves as well. The word blivesQ

refers to the whole personality and refers to the innermost being. Literally, Paul and his colleagues were

sharing their bown soulsQwith the Thessalonians (Constable, 1983; Morris, 1991).

3.7. Authentic and sincere

In verses 2:1012, Paul reminds the Thessalonians byou are witnesses, and so is God, how devoutly

and uprightly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers.Q According to the law of the Old

Testament, two or more witnesses were required to verify truth (Num. 35:30; Deut. 19:15). Consistentwith this law, Paul called both the Thessalonians and God as witnesses to affirm his holy conduct

(MacArthur, 1997). Evident in the text is the legitimacy and sincerity of Pauls ministry. Earlier, in verse

5, he had called on the Thessalonians as people who knew the facts and invoked God as witness to the

truth of his message (Morris, 1991). Here he does the same and even more emphatically.

Paul used three adverbs to indicate the authenticity and sincerity of his conduct and motives

devoutly, uprightly, and blamelessly. His inner convictions led to holy and devout behavior. With

reference to Gods high standards, his, Silvanus (Silas) and Timothys behaviors were upright and

righteous. Thus, they measured up to Gods expectations and requirements. Their conduct was blameless

and irreproachable, able to stand the scrutiny of critics (Constable, 1983).

3.8. Active, not passive

Earlier, Paul used the image of a tender mother nursing her young children. In verses 2:1112, he

invokes the image of a father who responsibly disciplines his children. The image here is that of a loving

father who trains and instructs his children. This training was active, not passive, and involved verbal

instruction as well as the modeling discussed earlier. The word exhorting refers to strong positive appeals

aimed at directing the followers into suitable conduct (Constable, 1983; Morris, 1991). This word is

derived from the Greek word bparakaleoQand means bto call alongside.QThis word is related to the noun

bparakletos,Qwhich is translated bone who comes alongsideQ(MacArthur, 2002). So Paul here refers to

how he came alongside his spiritual children for the purpose of aiding, developing, and instructing them

in their character development.Encouraging refers to comforting communications designed to cheer up and inspire correct behavior

(Constable, 1983). The word is reserved for the tender, restorative, compassionate uplifting needed by a

struggling, burdened, heartbroken child (MacArthur, 2002). To implore is to give a solemn and earnest

entreaty (Constable, 1983)and may refer to serious words addressed to slackers (Morris, 1991). In using

this word, Paul was warning his followers that deviation from the divinely prescribed course of conduct

had serious consequences. Taken together, these words indicate the personal touch of a loving father

(MacArthur, 1997).

The active nature of Pauls leadership is consistent with the fullrange of leadership advocated by

Avolio (1999). According to the fullrange of leadership view, the most effective leaders use a wide



11/22

variety of active transactional and transformational behaviors. From the transactional behavior set, these

leaders use management by exceptionactive and contingent reward, omitting the passive version of

management by exception. The transformational behavior set includes idealized influence, inspirationalleadership, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. The capability to use the full

range of those behaviors allows leaders to respond to all situations that arise with followers so that they

can be loving and encouraging, yet corrective and demanding when needed, much as a father is with

his children.

3.9. Followercentered, not selfcentered

For Paul, the goal of this strong exhortation is always aimed at the development of the follower. Paul

says that he has engaged in this coaching bso that you would walk in a manner worthy of the God who

calls you into His own kingdom and gloryQ(1 Thess 2:12). Thus, Pauls strong appeal is to lead lives

worthy of God, for this is the highest goal for those who have been saved by grace through faith in Christ(Eph. 2:89). For Paul, the verb bwalkingQis a favorite phrase that refers to the whole of ones life. Thus,

he urged the Thessalonians to live their entire lives in a manner worthy of Gods calling. This emphasis

on raising the Thessalonians to a higher calling is consistent with the idea that transformi ng leadership

raises the level of human conduct and the ethical aspirations of both the leader and the led (Burns, 1978).

3.10. Changed lives: the real measure of leader effectiveness

From this passage we have identified several qualities of leadership from the life and ministry of the

Apostle Paul. These qualities have addressed motives as well as behavior. But what impact did Pauls

leadership have? How is the effectiveness of leadership to be measured? Contemporary leadershipscholars often measure the impact of leadership on individual dimensions such as in-role (job

requirements) and extra-role (organizational citizenship behaviors) performance, satisfaction and

commitment, or organizational level performance such as market share or profitability. Avolio (1999)

has challenged these approaches to the measurement of leader effectiveness. According to him,

transformational leadership only has an indirect effect on these outcomes. The impact of a leader comes

through building trust, identification, and a willingness to support the leader and the organization

(Avolio, 1999). More recently, the traditional approach to understanding leader effectiveness has been

challenged by Lord & Brown (2004). According to them, bultimately, leadership is a process of

influence . . .and the effectiveness of a leader depends on his or her ability to change subordinatesQ

[italics added] (p. 7).

Consistent with the view advocated by Lord & Brown (2004), the measure of the Apostle Paulsleadership is the changed lives of those to whom he ministered: bYou also became [italics added]

imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy

Spirit, so that you became [italics added] an example to all the believers in Macedonia and AchaiaQ(1

Thess. 1:67). The key point here is that the Thessalonians became imitators. Just as Paul was

transformed by his personal encounter with the risen Christ and became an imitator of Him, the

Thessalonians were transformed by their encounter with Paul. As discussed earlier, they were bmarkedQ

and in turn became examples for others who were thus transformed. By being worthy of imitation, Paul

created a legacy that continues to provide an example of leadership that creates other leaders who

themselves are worthy of imitation.



12/22

In his pioneering work on Moses as a political leader, Wildavsky (1984) states that Moses was a

bleader who taught his people to do without him by learning how to lead themselves (p.1).Q For

Wildavsky this represents the highest level of leadership. This same process can be observed in Paulsdevelopment of his protege, Timothy. In Acts 16:13, Paul selects Timothy to accompany him on his

missionary journeys. In Acts 16:4, Luke reports that Paul and Timothy were together to deliver the

decrees to the cities outside of Jerusalem. Paul refers to working with Timothy in the opening greetings

of six of his epistles (2 Cor., Phil., Col., 1 and 2 Thess., and Philem.). In other passages, Paul refers to

sending Timothy out on assignments (1 Cor. 4:17; 1 Cor. 16:10; Phil. 2:19). Finally, Paul assigned

Timothy to the pastor role of the church in Ephesus, urging him to:

remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor pay

attention to myths and endless genealogies which give rise to mere speculation rather than

furthering the administration of God which is by faith (1 Tim. 1:3).

Pauls instructions in his two letters to Timothy and his letter to Titus, referred to as the PastoralEpistles, provide the foundation for church leadership by identifying the qualities that should

characterize those who would serve as elders and deacons. Thus, Pauls legacy of creating leaders

who are capable of leading without him continues to this day.

4. An integrative model of legacy leadership: motives and methods

InFig. 2, we present a model of spiritual leadership that identifies each of Pauls qualities of a legacy

leader as either a motive, method, or outcome of legacy leadership. Paul was a servant, and he

transformed others lives. He had the right motivation (his conversion experience and ultimate desire todo what Jesus called him to do), and he had the capability. Pauls behavior was never at odds with his

purpose and was a clear representation of the driving force behind his actions. Thus, his motives and his

methods were in correspondence with one another. This congruence between Pauls motives and

methods provided a base for Paul to assert bmoral authorityQ(Stanley, 1999).

Not only were Pauls motives and methods in congruence, his motives and methods were anchored to

a standard that was outside of himself. Throughout his defense of his motives he referred to the fact that

God and the Thessalonians were witnesses to his pure motive and upright behavior. Pauls motives were

representative of a set of universal or consensus values (Fry, 2005; Fry & Whittington, 2005). These

universal values have emerged in research from a variety of areas including workplace spirituality

(Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003), religion (Smith, 1992), character ethics and education (Josephson,

2002), positive psychology (Snyder & Lopez, 2001), and spiritual leadership theory (Fry, 2003). Thelink between an individuals motives and an external standard is the critical element in Fry &

Whittingtons (2005) approach to authentic leadership. According to Fry (2005), an individual whose

values, attitudes, and behavior are congruent with these consensus values will experience ethical well-

being, which leads to joy, peace, and serenity. Clearly, Pauls life bore these characteristics which he

referred to as the bfruit of the spiritQ (Gal. 5:2223).

InTable 2, we have identified four of the qualities of a legacy leader as representing Pauls motives,

and five that represent his methods. Motivation precedes behavior; although behavior may not

necessarily reflect ones motivation (Bass & Steidlmeir, 1999). Yet, we have suggested that Pauls

methods as a legacy leader did truly reflect his motives; and this point provides the most basic premise of



13/22

Leader Motives

Leader Methods

Perceived

Congruence

Between Leader

Motives and

Methods

Measures

FollowersChanged Lives

Pure

Motives

Authentic/Sincere

Follower -

Centered;Not Self -Centered

Affectionate/Emotional

Worthy ofImitation

BoldnessAmid

Opposition

InfluenceWithout

AssertingAuthority

Active; notPassive

Vulnerable/Transparent

BoldnesAmid

Oppositi

Vulnerable/

Transparent

Active; notPassive

Influence

WithoutAsserting

Authority

Fig. 2. Legacy leadership: A model of spiritual leadership.


14/22

our theory the behavior of a legacy leader is consistent with his/her internal motivation. Thus, we

propose the following:

Proposition 1. The motives of a legacy leader will influence the leaders choice of methods.

The true measure of the impact a leader has on others is represented by the degree to which they haveincorporated the leaders qualities into their own lives (Avolio, 1999; Lord & Brown, 2004). In order for

a leader to leave his or her legacy with a follower, however, the follower must firstperceive the leader as

one with pure motives who is worthy of imitation. Only under these c ircumstances will legacy leadership

be perpetuated in the follower through his or her changed life (seeFig. 2).

The mediating mechanism of follower perceptions has been emphasized by Lord and his associates

(Hall & Lord, 1995; Lord & Brown, 2004; Lord & Maher, 1993 ). According to their perspective,

leadership is not located solely in the leader or the follower, rather it involves the interpretation of

behaviors, traits, and outcomes produced as interpreted by the followers (Lord & Maher,1993). In fact,

Lord & Maher (1993) define leadership as the process of being perceived as a leader. Yammarino &

Dubinsky (1994)andAvolio & Yammarino (1990)also have examined the role of perceptions within the

context of transformational leadership, suggesting it is in the beyes of the beholderQ(p. 193).The interpretation of leader motives and behaviors by followers is crucial to the process of legacy

leadership.Dasborough & Ashkanasay (2002) suggest that characteristics of the previous interaction

between the leader and follower, attributions made for the leaders intentions, and follower

characteristics such as mood, experience, and role in the interaction (as a target or as a bystander)

will influence the followers perception of the leaders behavior. While acknowledging these situational

influences on information processing, our focus is on the importance of the role the leader plays in

eliciting accurate perceptions of his/her motives and methods.

Clearly, few, if any, would deny that perceptions guide behavioral and attitudinal changes. These

perceptions are behind changes in values or motivation. Within the context of the legacy leadership

model, it is important that followers perceive a congruence between the motives and methods of theleader. When the leaders motives and methods are seen as congruent, the leader becomes a legitimate

example for followers to emulate. Thus, the followers internalize the leaders motives and methods

and begin to act in a way that emulates the leader. In our model, bchanged livesQprovides a measure

of Pauls influence on his followers lives. Their lives changed because they were able to see Paul, in

his own life, bwalk the talk.QThat made his message legitimate, personal, and attainable. They were

willing to believe what he had to say and lived their lives as evidence of that belief. Thus, we propose

the following:

Proposition 2.The effects of a legacy leaders motives and methods on followers changed lives will be

mediated by the followers perceptions of those motives and methods.

Table 2

Motive, methods and measures of legacy leadership

Motives Methods Measures

!Pure motive !Worthy of imitation !Changed lives

!Authentic/sincere !Boldness amid opposition

!Follower-centered, not self-centered !Influence without exerting authority

!Affectionate/emotional !Vulnerable/transparent

!Active, not passive



15/22

From the perspective of legacy leadership, the changes in followers lives will be internal first.

Followers of legacy leaders internalize the motives and values they perceive in the leader. This

internalization may result in a shift from egotistical to altruistic motives, or a strengthening of alreadyexisting altruistic motives. Values also may shift such that leaders are not viewed as providing only

instrumental value to followers lives but also as having intrinsic value (Covey, 1990; Goodwin,

Whittington, & Bowler, 2004). These internal changes in motives and values will result in changed

attitudes toward the organization (job satisfaction, commitment) and in outward behaviors such as

increased performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and other pro-social behaviors. Koesten-

baum (2002)advocates the position that leadership is not about what one does, but who one is. Thus, a

leaders behavior should provide evidence for his/her motives and values regardless of the setting; and

the leaders influence should likewise be demonstrated in his/her followers lives as they assume his/her

motives and values as their own. Thus, we expect the following:

Proposition 3. The impact of legacy leadership will be measured by changes in followers lives thatcome to reflect the motives and methods of their leaders.

5. Discussion

Recently, there has been a rapidly growing interest in identifying spiritual dimensions of leadership. A

subset of this movement has focused on the leadership styles of Jesus and various Old Testament

Biblical characters (Manz, 1998; Manz et al., 2001). Despite this growing interest, there have been few

attempts to link Biblical insights with the social scientific approach to leadership. One notable exception

to this trend is the earlier work ofWildavsky (1984)who explicitly links the leadership of Moses to the

social sciences. In this paper, we follow Wildavskys approach by examining the leadership qualities that

guided the Apostle Paul as he helped establish the early church. In doing so, we offer the Apostle Paul as

a prototype of what we call legacy leadership.

Our analysis of Pauls leadership style is based primarily on an exegesis of his first letter to the

Thessalonians. While there are limitations inherent in using a sacred text as a basis for building a

leadership model, we believe that the historical record shows that the Apostle Paul was very influential

in the establishment and early growth of Christianity as both a religious movement and social force.

Thus, we believe it is appropriate to examine the leadership philosophy and behavior that he used.

Through an examination of a brief passage in his first letter to the Thessalonians and other writings, we

have identified several qualities that guided him. Central to our understanding of Pauls leadership

approach are his motives and methods, and the consistency between them. Furthermore, throughfollowers perceptions of the legitimacy of a legacy leader, their lives are forever changed so that they

may perpetuate the process. Thus, our model is consistent with the belief that leaders should create

leaders (Koestenbaum, 2002).

5.1. Spiritual leadership and legacy leadership

Fry (2003) has provided a useful guide for the development of theories of spiritual leadership.

According to him, bspiritual leadership comprises the values, attitudes, and behaviors that are necessary

to intrinsically motivate ones self and others so that they have a sense of spiritual survival through



16/22

calling and membershipQ(p. 711). As such, bspiritual leadership taps into the fundamental needs of both

leader and followerQ (p. 711). According to Fry, this process involves creating a vision so that

organizational members experience their life as meaningful and that they can make a difference. Fry alsostates that spiritual leadership is based on altruistic love, by genuine care, concern, and appreciation that

is mutual and reciprocal between leaders and followers.

We believe that the legacy leadership model developed in this paper is consistent with Frys (2003)

conception of spiritual leadership. The Apostle Pauls motives were altruistic and completely centered on

his followers. Furthermore, through his vulnerability, his transparency, and his willingness to live among

the Thessalonians as an equal, we can see the mutual and reciprocal care and concern that characterized

the relationship.

In the context of the Thessalonians passage examined in this paper, bcallingQ would include the

sharing of the gospel and the response to that invitation. Pauls goal was to influence the Thessalonians

to bWalk in a manner worthy of the God who calls you into His own kingdom and gloryQ(1 Thess. 2:12).

In this application, calling seems not only to be an ultimate objective, but an ongoing process that alsocontributes to a sense of bmembershipQin the community of saints. Furthermore, this calling implies a

strong, positive vision that would impact others for good in whatever environment in which the leader is

operating. The love, care, and concern exhibited by Paul for his followers caused their lives to change

forever and to reflect these same qualities back to Paul and to their own followers as they became leaders

in the faith. The legacy leadership qualities we have outlined would seem to be aligned with Frys (2003)

idea of spiritual leadership.

5.2. Transformational leadership and legacy leadership

There are many parallels between the qualities we see in the leadership style of the Apostle Paul and thetransformational leadership paradigm that has been widely supported over the last two decades. Yet,

because transformational leadership deals only with the behaviors and traits of the leader, we believe that

legacy leadership transcends transformational leadership by explicitly identifying and addressing the

motives of the leaders. By addressing these motives, we also have acknowledged concerns over the abuse

of power and issues relevant to the recent work on pseudo-transformational leaders (Bass & Steidlmeir,

1999; Price, 2003). According to Bass (1998), while overt behaviors might appear the same, true

transformational leaders differ from pseudo-transformational leaders in terms of values, power motive,

social distance, and concern for follower development. True transformational leaders operate from a goal

of being bmorally upliftingQ to followers. They also differ from pseudo-transformational leaders by

channeling their need for power into bsocially constructive ways in the service of othersQ(p.185).

By explicitly discussing the bpower motiveQ within the context of leadership, as we have, andillustrating its significance to follower interpretations of the leaders behavior, we have incorporated an

important dimension of the leadership process not addressed in other models. We believe this is an

important element of the leadership process that is particularly relevant in light of recent concerns about

the abuse of authority and the unethical behavior of leaders.

5.3. Leader motive patterns and the problem of power

For many contemporary scholars (Bass, 1998; Burns, 1978; Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996), motive is

a major concern. This concern is expressed by Burns (1978) who drew a sharp distinction between



17/22

leaders and power wielders. Power wielders use the resources of their power bases that are relevant to the

attainment of their own purposes and may treat people as things. In contrast, Burns defines leadership as

a process that takes place in the context of a relationship between leaders and followers, whereleadership is inseparable from followers needs and goals. According to Burns, ball leaders are actual or

potential power holders, but not all power holders are leadersQ(p. 18).

Expansion on our model of legacy leadership could benefit from a more in-depth look at the power

motive. For example, the contemporary view of power is built on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964;

Emerson, 1962; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), which views power as a function of the dependency target

individuals have on others (Pfeffer, 1981). Thus, the greater the level of dependency a follower has on a

leader, the greater the power that leader would have over the follower. If power is to be viewed as a

function of dependency, a key question then becomes bHow will those who have power handle the

dependencies of others?QAn individuals answer to this questionwill distinguish those who would be

leaders from those who are merely bpower wieldersQ(Burns, 1978). Those who lead have a deep moral

obligation to handle those dependencies delicately.In the Thessalonians passage examined in this paper, the Apostle Paul spends a great deal of energy

defending his motive. He makes a clear case that his motive is pure, that he is not seeking the approval

of men, and that he is not operating with a mask to conceal greed. As such, Pauls motive appears to be

in line with the altruistic motive pattern described by Kanungo & Medonca (1996). The altruistic

motive pattern is rooted in the intent to benefit others. Furthermore, altruistic leaders are characterized

by an institutional need for power. They are preoccupied with the concerns, goals, and interests of the

organization and its members. They yield their self-interest to that of the organization. They draw

primarily on the resources of their personal power base (i.e., expertise or attraction as perceived by the

followers). While relying primarily on personal power bases, these leaders also may rely on rewards

and sanctions as means of control and influence; however, they do so impartially and equitably. Powerfor these leaders is manifested in behaviors and feelings that serve to help and support the followers in

accomplishing their tasks.

Altruistic leaders also have an affiliative interest in their followers (Kanungo & Medonca, 1996).

They are motivated primarily by a genuine interest in them and relate to followers as individuals with

ideas and resources. Thus, followers are viewed as partners in problem solving and related activities

necessary for attaining organizational objectives. Consequently, supportive feelings permeate the

interpersonal relationships between altruistic leaders and their followers.

In addition, altruistic leaders are driven by a social achievement motive. They show a concern for

others and initiate efforts that focus on individual and collective capability. These leaders want to create a

better quality of life and seek to engage in meaningful organizational and social action in order to

influence the common good (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996; Mehta, 1994).Because his ultimate motive was to benefit his followers, it is clear that Pauls leadership style is

rooted in the altruistic motive pattern. There are several indications that he took an affiliative interest in

his followers. By de-emphasizing hierarchy and position, Paul lived among the Thessalonians and

viewed them as partners in the perpetuation of the gospel. The image of a nursing mother and a loving

father certainly created supportive feelings that permeated Pauls relationship with them. While he may

have deserved and received praise and recognition from others, Paul was not motivated by that desire.

Rather, he subordinated his self-interest to the goal of spreading the gospel and pleasing God,

demonstrating an binstitutionalQneed for power. He drew on the personal resources provided by his

character and integrity. Furthermore, Paul focused on the capabilities of others as demonstrated through



18/22

his praise for their imitation of him (as a role model for Christians) and the fact that the Thessalonians

became an example for others. He praised their transformation and behavior as an exemplification of

their transformation. Research on legacy leadership should include consideration of the altruistic motivepattern as a potential means of operationalizing and describing the motives construct within our model.

5.4. Servant-leadership and legacy leadership

Servant-leadership (Greenleaf, 1977) is another theoretical perspective that should be considered in

conjunction with legacy leadership. Because servant-leadership is a follower-centered approach to

leadership that explicitly identifies the leaders motives for serving and leading, it differs from

transformational leadership and resembles legacy leadership. More recent research (Spears, 1998) on

servant-leadership has included specific leader behaviors or methods that a servant leader might use with

his or her followers. Legacy leadership goes a step further by including the mediating role of follower

cognitions and interpretations of the leaders motives and behaviors as the necessary means by whichfollowers, themselves, become legacy leaders. Furthermore, although the measurement of servant-

leadership has not been well established empirically, its dimensions should have implications for the

measurement of legacy leadership.

5.5. Emotional intelligence and legacy leadership

Recent work by Goleman and associates (Goleman et al., 2002) on emotional intelligence also is

relevant to legacy leadership. Emotional intelligence refers to a set of competencies that a leader uses to

handle himself/herself and his/her relationships with others. These competencies are separated into four

groups: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. Thesecompetencies generally represent characteristics of one who is confident and emotionally aware, able to

express emotion openly, but appropriately and positively, who is empathetic, and able to manage

relationships with and among others as needed.

Several of the characteristics of Pauls leadership style are consistent with the competencies of

emotional intelligence. For example, Pauls clear understanding of his purpose and the drive behind his

behavior represent aspects of the self-awareness dimension. His willingness to be vulnerable and

transparent is consistent with the self-management dimension of emotional intelligence. His affection for

the Thessalonians and his emotional appeals demonstrate his empathy, an aspect of the social awareness

dimension. The boldness amid opposition that he demonstrated shows his understanding of the change

catalyst role and the challenges associated with leading change, part of the relationship management

dimension. Pauls follower-centered leadership also is consistent with relationship management as is hisuse of referent power to exert influence without authority. As a result, it would seem that emotional

intelligence should be considered within the context of legacy leadership.

6. Implications for research

We have provided a casual model of leadership that integrates the leaders motive and behaviors into

the leadership process. While social science research has a long tradition of investigating leader

behavior, we feel there is a need to investigate the motives particularly the power orientation of



19/22

leaders. Research that explores the relationship between the underlying motives and the overt behavior

of leaders will beinformed by the cognitive process approach to understanding behavior pioneered by

Feldman (1981), Gioia & Poole, (1984), and Wofford and his associates (Wofford & Goodwin, 1994;Wofford, Goodwin, & Whittington, 1998). This stream of research established the relationship between

cognition and behavior. In particular, Wofford and his associates demonstrated significant differences in

the cognitions of transformational and transactional leaders. This may provide guidance for investigating

the relationship between leader motives and methods, and it may allow us to access followers

perceptions as a mediator of the motiveYmeasure and methodYmeasure relationships. Future research

should continue to emphasize the centrality of follower perceptions in the leadership process ( Lord,

1985; Lord & Brown, 2004; Lord & Maher, 1993; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994).

The legacy leadership model contains an implicit assumption that the leader has already developed the

characteristics identified (motives and methods). The model also implicitly assumes the followers are not

already fully formed as legacy leaders themselves. Thus, the measurement of bchanged lives,Qwhether in

behavior or in attitudes, will be crucial for identifying the influence of a legacy leader on followers.Longitudinal research is the best approach to examine such change. This type of research could require a

baseline measure of followers on a variety of constructs that might be influenced by a legacy leader; for

example, ethics, stage of moral development (Kohlberg, 1976), emotional intelligence, and motive

pattern. These measures would need to be obtained prior to their exposure to a new leader. Then

attributes of the leader would be assessed to determine to what degree they were legacy leaders. Over

time, their influence on follower behavior and attitudes could be determined.

Cross-sectional research also could be conducted to determine if followers of legacy leaders emulate

their behaviors and attitudes more or less than followers of individuals not considered to be legacy

leaders. The emulation, or self-perpetuation, of legacy leaders is a key to the theory we have developed

in our paper.The assessment of leader motives would be an important dimension of this proposed stream of

research. Of particular interest would be the relationship between the leaders motives and the followers

perception of the leaders motives. Do followers make accurate attributions of the leaders motives? This

aspect of our proposed model of legacy leadership would be strengthened by integrating research on self-

monitoring (Snyder, 1987). Nichols (2004) suggests that self-monitoring may help explain differences

between true transformational and pseudo-transformational leaders. Consistent with his propositions, we

would expect legacy leaders to be low self-monitors because their methods (behaviors) are consistent

with their internal motives, beliefs, and values. They would be less likely to be high self-monitors who

change their behaviors to match the situation. With experience, followers should be able to ascertain

whether their leaders are low or high self-monitors and, with this information, improve upon the

accuracy of their perceptions about the correspondence between the leaders motives and methods.

7. Implications for practice

If we accept the spread of Christianity and its enduring impact on civilization, the Apostle Paul must

be recognized as one of the most influential men in history. His motives and methods established

Christianity as a dominant cultural and religious force throughout Northern Africa, the Middle East,

Europe, and Western Asia (Allen, 1927; Bruce, 1977; MacArthur, 1997). The key question before us as

scholars and practitioners is: Are these motives and methods valid today? We believe they are.



20/22

In an age when corporate corruption and executive greed have eroded the trust in leaders, there is an

ever greater need to advocate credible leadership that is built on a strong foundation of integrity. When

leaders demonstrate resilience and boldness in the face of opposition, people take notice. When leadersdare to be vulnerable and transparent, are not afraid to show compassion and emotion, followers are

attracted. When leaders choose to handle their followers dependency on them delicately and use referent

power even when their formal status provides reward and coercive power bases, people become

committed. When a leader is authentic and genuinely concerned about the well-being of his or her

followers and demonstrates an active commitment to the development of these followers, people are

changed. As followers are themselves transformed, they become examples for others and the process is

perpetuated. The result of the process is leaderful communities (Raelin, 2003) and companies full of

leaders (Spreitzer & Quinn, 2001).

Legacy leadership is a timely response given the recent rash of corporate scandals and executive

greed. However, the qualities discussed here also are timeless. We believe the qualities of legacy

leadership can be practiced in all leadership settings from the home to the classroom to the boardroom.But it all begins with motive, and the changing of a leaders motives may require a transforming

encounter on the road to Damascus.

References

Allen, R. (1927). Missionary methods: St. Pauls or ours? London7 World Dominion Press.

Avolio, B. (1999). Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage.

Avolio, B., & Yammarino, F. (1990). Operationalizing charismatic leadership using a level of analysis framework. The

Leadership Quarterly, 1, 193208.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations . New York7 The Free Press.

Bass, B. (1998). The ethics of transformational leadership. In J. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics: The heart of leadership (pp. 169192).Westport, CN7 Praeger.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership . Thousand Oaks7

Sage.

Bass, B., & Steidlmeire, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership

Quarterly, 10, 181217.

Blanchard, K., Hybels, B., & Hodges, P. (1999). Leadership by the book: Tools to transform your workplace . New York7

William Morrow & Co.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York7 Harper & Row.

Bruce, F. (1977). Paul: Apostle of the heart set free . Grand Rapids, MI7 William B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York7 Harper & Row.

Ciulla, J. (2000). The working life: The promise and betrayal of modern work. New York7 Times Books.

Conger, J. (1994). Spirit at work: Discovering the spirituality in leadership . San Francisco7 Jossey-Bass.Constable, T. (1983). 1 Thessalonians. In J. Walvoord, & R. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible knowledge commentary: New testament

(pp. 687712). Wheaton, IL7Victor Books.

Covey, S. (1990). Principle-centered leadership. New York7 Simon & Schuster.

Dasborough, M., & Ashkanasay, N. (2002). Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leadermember relationships. The

Leadership Quarterly, 13, 615634.

Emerson, R. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 3141.

Feldman, J. (1981). Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology,

66, 127148.

French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. P. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power(pp. 150167).

Ann Arbor, MI7 Institute for Social Research.

Fry, J. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693727.



21/22

Fry, L. W. (2005). Toward a theory of ethical and spiritual well-being and corporate responsibility through spiritual leadership.

In R. A. Gialcone, & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Positive psychology in business ethics and corporate responsibility.

Greenwich, CT7 Information Age Publishing.

Fry, L. W., & Whittington, J. L. (2005). Spiritual leadership theory as a source for organization development andtransformation.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu, HA.

Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Toward a science of workplace spirituality. In R. A. Giacalone, & C. L.

Jurkiewicz (Eds.),Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance(pp. 328). New York7M. E. Sharp.

Gioia, D., & Poole, P. (1984). Scripts in organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 9, 449459.

Goleman, D., Boyzatis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston7

Harvard Business School Press.

Goodwin, V. L., Whittington, J. L., & Bowler, M. (2004). LMX and social capital. Paper presented at the meeting of the

Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.

Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant-leadership. New York7 Paulist Press.

Guinness, O. (1998). The call: Finding and fulfilling the central purpose of your life . Nashville, TN7 Word Publishing.

Hall, R., & Lord, R. (1995). Multi-level information-processing explanations of followers leadership perceptions. The

Leadership Quarterly, 6, 265287.Jones, L. (1995). Jesus CEO: Using ancient wisdom for visionary leadership. New York7 Hyperion.

Josephson, M. (2002). Making ethical decisions. Marina del Ray, CA7 Josephson Institute of Ethics.

Kanungo, R., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage.

Koestenbaum, P. (2002). Leadership: The inner side of greatness . San Francisco7 Jossey-Bass.

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Likona (Ed.), Moral

development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues. Austin, TX7 Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kotter, J. (1990). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, MayJune (pp. 103111).

Lencioni, P. (1998). The five temptations of a CEO . San Francisco7 Jossey-Bass.

Lockman Foundation (1995). New American standard Bible-updated edition . Anaheim, CA7 Publications, Inc.

Lord, R. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in

organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 87128.

Lord, R., & Brown, D. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ7 Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lord, R., & Maher, K. (1993). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston7

Rutledge.

MacArthur, J. (1991). The MacArthur new testament commentary: Romans 18. Chicago7 Moody Press.

MacArthur, J. (1997). The MacArthur study Bible . Nashville, TN7 Word.

MacArthur, J. (2002). The MacArthur new testament commentary: 1 and 2 Thessalonians . Chicago7 Moody Press.

Manz, C. (1998). The leadership wisdom of Jesus: Practical lessons for today. San Francisco7 Berrett-Koehler.

Manz, C., Manz, K., Marx, R., & Neck, C. (2001). The wisdom of Solomon at work: Ancient virtues for living and leading

today. San Francisco7 Berrett-Koehler.

May, W. (2001). Beleaguered rulers: The public obligation of the professional. Louisville, KY7Westminster John Knox Press.

Mehta, P. (1994). Empowering the people for social achievement. In R. Kanungo, & M. Mendonca (Eds.), Work motivation:

Models for developing countries(pp. 161183). New Delhi7 Sage.

Morris, L. (1991). The first and second epistles to the Thessalonians, revised. Grand Rapids, MI7 Eerdmans.

Nichols, T. (2004). Identifying false leadersunmasking the masked. University of North Texas, department of management,working paper series. Denton, TX.

Palmer, P. (2000). Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation . San Francisco7 Jossey-Bass.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA7 Pitman.

Price, T. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 6781.

Raelin, J. (2003). Creating leaderful organizations. San Francisco7 Berrett-Koehler.

Smith, H. (1992). The worlds religions . New York7 Peter Smith.

Snyder, M. (1987). Private appearance/public realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York7 Freeman.

Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2001). Handbook of positive psychology. New York7 Oxford University Press.

Spears, L. (1998).Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership . New York7John Wiley & Sons.

Spreitzer, G., & Quinn, R. (2001). A company of leaders . San Francisco7 Jossey-Bass.

Stanley, A. (1999). Visioneering. Sisters, OR7 Mutltnomah Publishers, Inc.



22/22

Swindoll, C. (2002). Paul: A man of grace and grit. Nashville, TN7 W Publishing Group.

Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. (1959). The social psychology of groups . New York7 Wiley.

Thompson, C. M. (2000). The congruent life: Following the inward path to fulfilling work and inspired leadership . San

Francisco7 Jossey-Bass.Wildavsky, A. (1984). The nursing father: Moses as a political leader. Tuscaloosa, AL7 University of Alabama Press.

Wofford, J. C., & Goodwin, V. L. (1994). A cognitive interpretation of transactional and transformational leadership theories.

The Leadership Quarterly, 5(2), 161186.

Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., & Whittington, J. L. (1998). A field study of a cognitive approach to understanding

transformational and transactional leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 5584.

Yammarino, F., & Dubinsky, A. (1994). Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of analysis to determine boundary

conditions. Personnel Psychology, 47, 787811.

Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 70, 126135.


Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	drpeterdickens
View:	239 times
Download:	0 times

Whittington 2005 Apostle Paul[1]

Documents